# What is the secular purpose of DOMA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983 "2012-03-27T21:56:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/441 "2012-03-31T19:30:31Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course it does, it denies them the right to marry. It does no such thing, of course. > [@](#): > > You are pretending that they have the right because they can marry an opposite-sex person, but that’s moronic on its face. No, what’s moronic is pretending that prop 8 does something which it does not. > [@](#): > > Assuming you are a man, Never assume. But point taken. > [@](#): > > would you consider yourself as having the right to marry if you could only marry men? Regardless, I still have the same right to marry as anyone else. I derive no benefit nor experience no hardship that is different than anyone else. > [@](#): > > The constitution says nothing of interracial marriages. It also says nothing about banning polygamy. The constitution has plenty by which the Loving case was determined reasonably. The same can not be said for sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/442 "2012-03-31T19:43:43Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > It does no such thing, of course. Yes it does. What do you think it does? > [@](#): > > No, what’s moronic is pretending that prop 8 does something which it does not. I assume you’re suggesting that there is no right to marry the same sex. Actually, in California there was that right. It was removed by prop 8. Rights are granted by the society you live in. > [@](#): > > Never assume. But point taken. > > Regardless, I still have the same right to marry as anyone else. I derive no benefit nor experience no hardship that is different than anyone else. Sure you do, under my hypothetical, you are unable to marry someone you love, because, presumably you can’t sexually love a man. In my hypothetical, you would be the one oppressed, and the gays would have all the rights. I doubt you’d be so happy to be oppressed in that scenario. > [@](#): > > The constitution has plenty by which the Loving case was determined reasonably. The same can not be said for sexual orientation. Equal protection, maybe? In any case, there is no substantive difference between the two. **PROTIP** : Click on the quote button below my post to respond. Don’t create a new quote tag at the beginning of my post. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/443 "2012-03-31T19:57:10Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Second, the constitution speak to what the Loving case remedied. The constitution never mentions, nor hints at, protections for sexual orientation. The Constitution also doesn’t mention protections for race. The only place it mentions race _at all_ is in the 15th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/444 "2012-03-31T20:12:26Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Sure. Marriage is no longer between a man and woman. It becomes between consenting adults - number indeterminate. Huh. I wasn’t calling for “number indeterminate”, nor does the Canadian recognition of SSM call for it, so where _that_ come from? > [@](#): > > See above. Your “above” was based on a position I wasn’t asking you about, so it offers no illumination. > [@](#): > > We’re not grading on a scale here. Anything other thanboth biological parents is less. Is _one_ biological parent “less” than _no_ biological parents? Can you not answer what I thought, not unreasonably, to be a very simple question? I should point out that refusing to answer is not a neutral response but a negative one, because it suggests you recognize the flaw in your reasoning but refuse to admit to it. > [@](#): > > On the one hand, there is the claim that ssc are already stable, capable, and motivated to provide homes for children, on the other it can’t be done without government interference.Decide which it is? They don’t want interference, they want recognition and the associated legal benefits. > [@](#): > > Go ahead and be baffled. Well, to be honest, I figure the _true_ motivation is dark and simple. The baffling part comes from people who think they can claim to argue an anti-SSM position by claiming a reasoning thought process, yet offer no evidence. Who do they think they’re fooling? > [@](#): > > Anyone is free to enter into the insitution of marriage ust like the rest of us. No, they’re not. The “rest of us” get to choose marriage partners who appeal to us sexually (or at least we have that option - not all marriages are based on sexual attraction) but homosexuals do not, where same-sex marriage is outlawed. > [@](#): > > It’s not about cost. I havae given you a secular reason. Because it permanently changes the institution of marriage. That’s nothing but a meaningless buzz-phrase until you can describe what these changes are, and how they have manifested (or should be manifesting) in venues where SSM has been legal for five or more years. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/445 "2012-04-01T02:07:59Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Sure. Marriage is no longer between a man and woman. It becomes between consenting adults - number indeterminate. Your assertion of polygamy is baseless, so you might want to avoid that sort of nonsense. Other than that, it would seem that your argument is that “everything” is changed without an actual list of things that have changed, (unless you are now claiming that marriages in opposite sex couples, to date, have not been between consenting adults?). What is the “everything” that has changed? I see the union of two adult humans in a relationship of love, that includes concern for the welfare for the partner, concern for the welfare of any children, the exercise of responsibility to ensure that the other partner and any children are kept safe and both physically and emotionally protected from harm. The only actual difference appears to be the manner in which that love is expressed physically. (Claims that the children are not “biological” are worthless unless you are going to also excoriate adoption by heterosexual couples.) > [@hoopified](#): > > On the one hand, there is the claim that ssc are already stable, capable, and motivated to provide homes for children, on the other it can’t be done without government interference.Decide which it is? Your premise is false. The assertion is not that it cannot be done without government “interference.” It is that government support would enhance the survivability of such such families–support already offered to other families–and no actual argument (other than religious objections from variuos groups and , from you, some nebulous and erroneous claim that “everything” changes), has been put forth to argue against that support. > [@hoopified](#): > > I havae given you a secular reason. Because it permanently changes the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage began changing quite a few years ago and recognition of same sex marriage would simply be the acknowledgement of one of many such changes that have already occurred. It has been over 40 years since the notion that sex always leads to procreation was broken with the advent of chemical contraception. It has been over 30 years since the notion that only sex leads to procreation was broken with the advent of IVF and the subsequent phenomena of surrogates and other techniques. It has also been over 30 years since the notion that marriage was necessarily a lifetime commitment between the couple so engaged with the advent of no-fault divorce. It has been nearly 30 years since people began to recognize that many children face more harm in their birth home, (from “biological parents”), than they would in adoptive families, leading to more courts agreeing to separate children from their birth homes to be placed for adoption. For that matter, courts have been permitting adoption by single parents for well over 20 years. And it has been quite a few years, (depending on country), since other nations have recognized that same sex marriage has no logical, reality-based argument against it and have modified their laws to accommodate that recognition. Your “everything” is pretty hollow. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/446 "2012-04-01T02:31:55Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > So, all things being equal (which I don’t believe) isn’t it best, generally, that children are raised by their biological parents? All things being equal, (which, at least, you appear to admit that they never are), it may well be true that children do best when raised by their biological parents. However, there is no reason to support a law by pretending that it insists on that situation when the law already supports alternative scenarios. Excluding only one of many variations without any justification beyond, “it is different” is nothing more than enshrining bigotry in law. When you demonstrate that you have opposed adoption and divorce between parents of minor children in previous years, I will grant that you have a basis, (however misguided) for your beliefs. As long as you insist that same sex marriage is “bad” while having voiced no opposition to adoption and to divorce in familes with minor children, I am compelled to believe that you simply harbor unspoken prejudices against homosexuals that you prefer to hide. I also find your “biological parent” argument silly. The study on which you appear to wish to hang your hat used the term in a colloquial way to refer to one scenario of many. However, there is no evidence that the examiners actually tested each child for DNA to ensure that both parents were the gamete donors. They simply noted that kids had more problems when they had experience of divorce or when they were raised in a single parent home or when they were part of a blended family with an introduced step-parent or when they were adopted from at-risk situations. The “two biological parents” phrase was shorthand for a stable two-parent environment in which you have invested far more meaning than the authors actually intended. Even there, you have carefully avoided admitting that they also noted several situations in which the lack of “two biological parents” was ameliorated by other factors. A baby introduced to a family through IVF or surrogate motherhood is almost certainly going to be raised as if in a “two biological parent” home and, until you provide evidence that the researchers actually identified any surrogate-born or IVF children, you are hanging way too much meaning on a phrase that you have taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/447 "2012-04-01T12:57:03Z")
It’s completely tangential to the discussion as a whole, but I know a woman who is raising the child of her rapist with her husband. Would it be better for the child if she were to be forced by the state to marry her rapist instead? She also has a child with her husband: perhaps they should all cohabit together? ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/448 "2012-04-01T17:55:29Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > It’s completely tangential to the discussion as a whole, but I know a woman who is raising the child of her rapist with her husband. Would it be better for the child if she were to be forced by the state to marry her rapist instead? She also has a child with her husband: perhaps they should all cohabit together? Yes it is. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/449 "2012-04-01T18:15:27Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Yes it is. Glad we can put this debate to bed; there is no secular purpose for DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/450 "2012-04-01T21:39:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Glad we can put this debate to bed; there is no secular purpose for DOMA. Well, we can honesty say, again, that those opposed to SSM were given full opportunity to explain and yet could not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/451 "2012-04-02T19:57:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > When you demonstrate that you have opposed adoption and divorce between parents of minor children in previous years, I will grant that you have a basis, (however misguided) for your beliefs. . Again, though, that is not how the test for rational basis works. the test fopr rational basis does not examine your views to see if they are consistent, or if there is a better way to implement them. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/452 "2012-04-02T20:02:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, though, that is not how the test for rational basis works. the test fopr rational basis does not examine your views to see if they are consistent, or if there is a better way to implement them. I don’t see where **tom** said anything about the rational basis test in that post. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/453 "2012-04-02T20:08:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, though, that is not how the test for rational basis works. the test fopr rational basis does not examine your views to see if they are consistent, or if there is a better way to implement them. I am not arguing with you on this at all but I am interested in your opinion on this. Where do you think the court is going with the “rational basis with bite” rulings like Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Plyler v. Doe, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas. All of those were “held” under the rational basis but with the court coming up with its own ideas for legitimate government interest. Is the claimed government interest at risk of being invalidated in rational basis cases at risk or will the courts define a new level of review? ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/454 "2012-04-02T20:14:40Z")
> [@](#): > > However, there is no reason to support a law by pretending that it insists on that situation when the law already supports alternative scenarios. Just because we have a body of law that tries to address alternative scenarios does not mean that those same laws support them. Allowing that circumstances can be different in no way means that the ideal should be the goal. > [@](#): > > Excluding only one of many variations without any justification beyond, “it is different” is nothing more than enshrining bigotry in law. Except, coincedental to “it is different” is the reality that “it is different”. Demonstrably so. Traditional marriage consists of a man and a woman. They are different. I’m sorry you don’t see the value in that, but that doesn’t change the demonstrable fact that they are different. > [@](#): > > When you demonstrate that you have opposed adoption and divorce between parents of minor children in previous years, I will grant that you have a basis, (however misguided) for your beliefs. This is a bit unclear. > [@](#): > > As long as you insist that same sex marriage is “bad” I’ve never insisted such. I’ve written that it is less that the ideal. Same with a lot of other things that are less. > [@](#): > > while having voiced no opposition to adoption and to divorce in familes with minor children, That’s not what this thread is about. I think divorce and adoption is also less, and I’m not alone. But we’re not talking about that. > [@](#): > > I am compelled to believe that you simply harbor unspoken prejudices against homosexuals that you prefer to hide. Of course. Isn’t that always it? 😕 > [@](#): > > I also find your “biological parent” argument silly. Of course. > [@](#): > > The study on which you appear to wish to hang your hat used the term in a colloquial way to refer to one scenario of many. However, there is no evidence that the examiners actually tested each child for DNA to ensure that both parents were the gamete donors. They simply noted that kids had more problems when they had experience of divorce or when they were raised in a single parent home or when they were part of a blended family with an introduced step-parent or when they were adopted from at-risk situations. The “two biological parents” phrase was shorthand for a stable two-parent environment in which you have invested far more meaning than the authors actually intended. I’ll reread it. But I highly doubt your conclusions. Two biological parents often means… two biological parents. If they had meant stable homes I’m sure they would have had not hesitation to write so. > [@](#): > > Even there, you have carefully avoided admitting that they also noted several situations in which the lack of “two biological parents” was ameliorated by other factors. Do, I readily concede that human beings bring a wealth of plusses and minuses to any situation. > [@](#): > > A baby introduced to a family through IVF or surrogate motherhood is almost certainly going to be raised as if in a “two biological parent” home and, But that doesn’t change the inherent bond that still occurs with “real” biological couples. I’m not sure why we should retreat from that just because we have found another way. > [@](#): > > until you provide evidence that the researchers actually identified any surrogate-born or IVF children, you are hanging way too much meaning on a phrase that you have taken out of context. That’s bull and you know it. You’re relying on the probability that no one else will bother to look up the study. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/455 "2012-04-02T20:20:09Z")
Was there secular marriage in the US colonies before Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act 1753? That act had absolutely NOTHING to do with providing families for kids. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/456 "2012-04-02T20:21:32Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > But that doesn’t change the inherent bond that still occurs with “real” biological couples. I’m not sure why we should retreat from that just because we have found another way. Is it your contention that a gay couple, raising an infant from birth, who has never known any other parents, will not form a bond with the child, or will form a bond that is different in some significant way from the bond formed between a child and a pair of heterosexual parents? In what ways would the bond be different? How is that a function of the sexuality of the parents? What is your evidence for the existence of this difference? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/457 "2012-04-02T20:26:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t see where **tom** said anything about the rational basis test in that post. I know he didn’t. But since this is (a) the standard of review until it’s changed, and (b) something many people seem to have real trouble grasping, I felt it was useful to point out. I know **tomndebb** knows it; the many readers of his post may not. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/458 "2012-04-02T20:27:07Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Was there secular marriage in the US colonies before Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act 1753? > > That act had absolutely NOTHING to do with providing families for kids. It did not apply, in the US the government had no test for marriage outside of a couples declaration until after the civil war, it did not start to codify benefits for married couples until around the time Social Security was passed. So I would ask for any evidence that either of these were done for the benefits of kids. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/459 "2012-04-02T20:28:37Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I am not arguing with you on this at all but I am interested in your opinion on this. > > Where do you think the court is going with the “rational basis with bite” rulings like Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Plyler v. Doe, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas. > > All of those were “held” under the rational basis but with the court coming up with its own ideas for legitimate government interest. > > Is the claimed government interest at risk of being invalidated in rational basis cases at risk or will the courts define a new level of review? My opinion? The Court will continue to claim “rational basis” but use ‘teeth’ when it wnats to see a particular case shake out a particular way. It would be more honest, and better guidance for courts below, to either revise the test or create a fourth level of review, but I don’t believe they will. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/460 "2012-04-02T20:32:36Z")
Here is a cite for the claim that marriage was afforded these benefits out of an interest in survivor benefits and not out of some interest in providing families for children. [ > [@](#): > > But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information. ]([http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?\_r=1&pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=24)